—“The enemy does not care about being perceived as sane, cogent, rational, or reasonable. In short they completely lack agency, and therefore must be domesticated by any means necessary.”—-Chris M. Silbaugh
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 15:28:00 UTC
Theme: Governance
-
TALKING TO THEM IS NOT THE SOLUTION. By John Mark The thing is, *it doesn’t matt
TALKING TO THEM IS NOT THE SOLUTION.
By John Mark
The thing is, *it doesn’t matter* how good we get at pincer attacks on leftist “arguments”. It doesn’t matter if we are all JP-level debaters times 1000. *The left will never change just because we win a debate.* Midterm results show that although JP may help free some people from leftism, in the grand scheme it’s but a blip. There’s close to *zero* effect statistically from all our debating the left. *They don’t care* what we say. They want what they want, they carry out their instinctive strategy, period. They’ve been doing it for thousands of years. The few sincere truth-seekers who change their minds and join our side are not enough to turn the tide. They’re a lone ship drowning in a massive sea of instinctive leftists who will never change. Add in mass 3rd world immigration, and all our “gotcha” moments in conversations with leftists mean even less than they already do.
TALKING TO THEM IS NOT THE SOLUTION.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 14:38:00 UTC
-
“We (broadly, the hard Right) are the only group on the Right that has the answe
—“We (broadly, the hard Right) are the only group on the Right that has the answer, we are the only ones who know how to win, who are realistic enough to know what it takes to conserve anything and save Western Civ. And JP countersignals us hard. Unforgivable.”—John Mark
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 13:37:00 UTC
-
THE RIGHT: TRIPARTISM LIVES ON- Hard Right (Aristocratic, Martial, Judicial[pros
-THE RIGHT: TRIPARTISM LIVES ON-
Hard Right (Aristocratic, Martial, Judicial[prosecutorial])
… Middle Right (Commercial, Reciprocal, Legal[contractual])
… … Soft Right (Priestly, Moral, Religious[adherent])
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 11:56:00 UTC
-
CHRISTIAN (FEDERATED) MONARCHIES (RULE OF LAW KINGS) ARE THE OPTIMUM POLITICAL O
CHRISTIAN (FEDERATED) MONARCHIES (RULE OF LAW KINGS) ARE THE OPTIMUM POLITICAL ORDER
@Lord_Keynes2
Monarchs have a very bad record. They engage in war and conquest, acquire multi-ethnic empires, become cosmopolitans, and then it all falls apart: e.g., Ottoman empire, Russian empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, etc.
Replying to @Lord_Keynes2
I notice you aren’t mentioning the german manorial states, the scandinavian, the french polish or italian….
Replying to @Lord_Keynes2
Empires capture trade routes. Monarchies captured productive land. Both centralize rents in exchange for increasing local economic velocity. Study of european castle distribution illustrates rather easily the exceptional relationship between martial+judicial and std of living.
Replying to @Lord_Keynes2
Ergo the issue is not empire nor monarchy, but ETHNICITY. ie: ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, and trading ethnocentricity for rents at the cost of multicultural conflict is a short term win at long term cost.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 11:25:00 UTC
-
THE EXPERIMENT IS OVER AND THE JURY IS IN The jury is in. Monarchs produce bette
THE EXPERIMENT IS OVER AND THE JURY IS IN
The jury is in.
Monarchs produce better commons. the fewer the people in politics the better. The more powerful the law in resisting the king, a government, or each other, and the more powerful the militia in resisting all above, the better.
Liberalism in the sense of rule of law won.
Monarchy in the sense of production of commons won.
Fascism in the sense of state nationalism, ethnocentrism, state capitalism, and intolerance for competition on other than economic means, won.
Why? it’s the optimum decision making structure because it is the optimum means of accommodating differences in knowledge and incentives.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 10:58:00 UTC
-
JORDAN PETERSON’S STRATEGY EXPLAINED FOR THE HARD (ARISTOCRATIC, MARTIAL, JUDICI
JORDAN PETERSON’S STRATEGY EXPLAINED FOR THE HARD (ARISTOCRATIC, MARTIAL, JUDICIAL) RIGHT
Peterson preserves his ability to maintain a low intensity conflict, under the illusion that it is merely a low intensity conflict, as a defensive means of CONTINUING a low intensity conflict for a long period, and thereby accumulating attrition upon the enemy by continuous, incremental, cumulative means.
THE RIGHT’S INTERPRETATION OF HIS ACTIONS
The Aristocratic (Truth Telling Warrior) and Judicial (Truth Telling Natural Law) and Defensive Function (truth as extension of disgust, purity, loyalty) of both Martial and Judicial Aristocracy (“The Right”) objects to this technique – but in doing so, illustrates why Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Darwin, Nietzsche, and Military Grand Strategy are necessary courses of study: so that we do not confuse the moral, ideal, and eternal with the scientific, the real, and the temporal: we must retain REASON and AGENCY because of the PARTICULAR CASE, and not resort to HABIT and INTUITION because of the GENERAL standards of measure we rely upon for our group strategy.
THE CORRECT CRITICISM OF PETERSON (AND HIS PEERS)
My complaint against Peterson is consistent: (1) Truth proper is enough for western civilization because it is the source of the uniqueness of western civilization, and (2) his claim that wisdom (choice) is the same as truth (decidability) in order to (3) preserve his malinvestment in middle eastern literature (intuitionism) instead of exclusively western literature (reason), because (4) he practices his method of cognitive behavioral therapy (stoicism), by using storytelling (providing the objectivity of the observer) as a means of suggestion (which does succeed), instead of action ( demonstration), and self authority. And he does this because (5) he is artful in the technique of manipulation by suggestion using narrative analogy, and *possess moral intent* – but (6) failing to grasp that the entirety of the problem facing western civilization is that by not forbidding that technique of suggestion, we leave open the MAJORITY USE OF IT, by those who have *possessed immoral intent*: the abrahamists, marxists, feminist, and postmodernists. Because (7) we evolved to be suggestable by mothers using the feminine speech pattern, and it is the weaponization of that speech pattern under Abrahamism, Marxism, postmodernism, feminism – what we call ‘religious thought’ that has exploited the weakness not only in the modern Marxist, Postmodernist, Feminist era, but also in the ancient Zoroastrian, Abrahamic (jewish, christian, islamic) era, that brought about the dark ages, leaving ONLY THE FAR EAST (by design) and sub-saharan africa (by cost of access) insulated from the exploitation of this vulnerability.
THEREFORE
Think of Peterson as tying some number of the enemy down in the the narrows (Thermopylae) while we (the army and navy) martial our intellectual (strategic) and physical (revolt, civil war). They cannot afford to lose this battle with him. (and they are losing it). But it is up to us to defeat them, crush the army of deceit (Abrahamic, Marxist, Postmodernist, Feminist) and to restore Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Rule of Natural Law, and Markets in Everything that result from all of the above, with TOTAL DENIAL OF THE ENEMY of the field of exploiting our people’s weakness to suggestion by ‘want of the comforting and desirable narrative of our mothers that calms us in times of stress’.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Reciprocity
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 10:40:00 UTC
-
We have made an idea. We are building a thought leadership, and with it, a movem
We have made an idea. We are building a thought leadership, and with it, a movement.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-11 02:02:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1061438922067271685
-
“Do what is instrumental. The end has always justified the means. Virtue deliver
—“Do what is instrumental. The end has always justified the means. Virtue delivers nothing if it is not accompanied by an iron will. Systems are applicable for a particular time, place, and people. Be Machiavelli in a world of Mother Teresas. Only fools abide by the rules of defeatists.”— @[724441849:2048:Charlie Delta]
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-10 10:19:00 UTC
-
When I negotiate in a hostile environment I take the position of holding the mor
When I negotiate in a hostile environment I take the position of holding the moral high ground and ‘stay on message’ creating evidence of a narrative of holding the moral high ground. Most of the time we are punished or sued for honest errors, and get away with our most dishonest and immoral plans. The secret of legal success is holding the moral high ground and betting that the jury will side with you for doing so. I usually go all in and risk the jury. When my peers (board) disagree with me, they lose. Always. I never do a deal where I think I might get sued where I can’t construct a narrative of holding the moral high ground. And the secret is … largely, because you always try to actually do so. its simply the optimum business strategy. There will always be people who think your errors are plans, and don’t see the immoral plans you either did or didn’t take. But build a reputation for never surrendering, favoring litigation, and holding the high ground and it works.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-10 08:29:00 UTC